ReviewCureus2022
Non-echo Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in the Detection of Recurrent or Residual Cholesteatoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- ESR Essentials: imaging of middle ear cholesteatoma-practice recommendations by the European Society of Head and Neck Radiology.European radiology · 2025Guideline
- Incidence Rate and Determinants of Recurrent Cholesteatoma Following Surgical Management: A Systematic Review, Subgroup, and Meta-Regression Analysis.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Detection of cholesteatoma recurrence by magnetic resonance imaging (DWI non-EPI sequence) - how can we minimise false results?Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Beyond the otoscope: an imaging review of congenital cholesteatoma.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- The Role of Endoscopic Assistance in Surgery for Pediatric Cholesteatoma in Reducing Residual and Recurrent Disease.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of HASTE versus EPI-Based DWI for Retinoblastoma and Correlation with Prognostic Histopathologic Parameters.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Article
- PROPELLER diffusion weighted imaging for diagnosis of cholesteatoma in comparison with surgical and histopathological results: emphasis on false positivity and false negativity.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of patients with suspected recurrent cholesteatoma who underwent non-echo planar imaging (non-EPI) using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with surgery as the reference standard. We searched Medline, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database for diagnostic test accuracy studies. The following prespecified subgroup analyses were performed: patient age, number of radiologists interpreting MRI, study design, and risk of bias. We used a bivariate model using a generalized linear mixed model to pool accuracies. Of the 460 records identified, 32 studies were included, of which 50% (16/32) were low risk of bias. The overall pooled sensitivity was 92.2% (95% CI 87.3-95.3%), and specificity was 91.7% (85.2-95.5%). The positive likelihood ratio was 11.1 (4.5-17.8), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (0.04-0.13). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 130.3 (20.5-240). Heterogeneity was moderate on visual inspection of the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Subgroup analyses showed prospective studies reporting higher accuracies (p=0.027), which were driven by higher specificity (prospective 93.1% (88.4-96.0%) versus retrospective 81.2% (81.0-81.4%)). There was no difference in subgroups comparing patient age (p=0.693), number of radiologists interpreting MRI (p=0.503), or risk of bias (p=0.074). No publication bias was detected (p=0.98). In conclusion, non-EPI is a highly sensitive and specific diagnostic test able to identify recurrent cholesteatomas of moderate to large sizes. This test can be considered a non-invasive alternative to second-look surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.